[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Italian) |Next Page (Names - Legal)]
[Porsche Audi] Lord Crescent is correct when he states that there is no Rule explicitly banning intrusively modern names. Nonetheless, intrusive modernity is given as a reason for armorial return (VIII.4.b); it is given as a reason for not accepting mundane names, even under the Mundane Name Allowance (II.4); we may reasonably infer that intrusive modernity is unacceptable.
If a specific Rule must be cited, Rule I.1 requires all names to be "compatible with the period and domain of the Society"; moreover, even names formed from period elements can be returned if "they have been specifically declared incompatible by these rules, Laurel precedent, or a policy statement from the Board of Directors." Intrusive modernity has been declared sufficient reason for return in the past: Joe Westermark, the Artemisian Tank Corps, Rolling Thunder, and the Societas Historum Mortum have all been returned for modernity. The precedent is well-established, and therefore, by I.1 may be cited as reason for return.
The fact that this is a "joke name" is not, in and of itself, a problem. The College has registered a number of names, perfectly period in formation, that embodied humor: Drew Steele, Miles Long, and John of Somme Whyre spring to mind as examples. They may elicit chuckles (or groans) from the listener, but no more. Intrusively modern names grab the listener by the scruff of the neck and haul him, will he or nill he, back into the 20th Century. A name that, by its very presence, destroys any medieval ambience is not a name we should register. (Porsche Audi, August, 1992, pg. 28)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Italian) |Top of Page |Next Page (Names - Legal)]
The OED confirms maied as a variant form of mead, "meadow"; ironmaied would be a field where iron could be found (a meteorite fall, or an outcropping of iron ore). The toponymic, though strongly reminiscent of the Iron Maiden, does appear to be a valid construction; and if the submitter can live with the inevitable jokes, so can we. (Darbie of Ironmaid, November, 1992, pg. 2)
[House Castor Bellator] The household name is Latin for "warrior beaver". This doesn't follow our current guidelines for household names: we wouldn't register John the Warrior Beaver, so we shouldn't register this. It is barely possible that House of the Warrior Beaver might be a late-period English inn name --- but such a name wouldn't be in Latin. (Eadwyn Inhold., September, 1992, pg. 48)
[Saltare] This was submitted as the name for the Kingdom dance guild. Unfortunately, the infinitive verb "to dance" (in English or in Latin) doesn't seem to be a valid group name. Similar guild names in period seem to have been straightforward descriptions of their craft: Company of Coopers, Baker's Guild, etc. We could see a bit more fanciful name, such as the Guild of St. Vitus or the Terpsichorean Guild. We could even see using the Latin saltare, properly conjugated, as part of a Latinized guild name. But the simple "to dance", with no noun or designator, cannot be accepted without more evidence than we've been given. (Kingdom of Meridies, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Uodalrica] There was some question in the commentary about the validity of the given name. The original root, Uodalric, is masculine by virtue of its masculine deuterotheme -ric. It's possible that the Latinized form Uodalricus is simply be the default spelling for that time and place --- and therefore, unlike classical Latin names such as Julius/Julia, incapable of being feminized by changing -us to -a. The question cannot be definitively answered, on the basis of the evidence presented for this submission. However, the Society has traditionally been tolerant of feminized forms of period masculine names, whether such feminized names were documented or not; in part, this is an acknowledgement that women's names simply weren't recorded as often as men's names. As a general rule, if the masculine form of a name is documented to period, we assume the feminized form is acceptable. In this particular case, barring any direct evidence to the contrary, we will give the submitter the benefit of the doubt. (Uodalrica MacDonnell, September, 1993, pp. 5-6)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Names - Italian) |Top of Page |Next Page (Names - Legal)]